Surreptitious Radical Maniac

  After the surgical strike, one of my friend wrote this “…many of our friends, families and loved ones are going to lose their lives. This insanity is not worth the lives of our armed forces. It just is not” Another friend wrote “This is how we do it” Most people are happy that a surgical strike has been executed which allegedly killed terrorists. But, what is that going to change right now? Do people think about that? Will it reduce the number of terrorist attacks? None of the empirical evidence across the world shows just killing terrorists would reduce attacks. The famous killing of Osama bin Laden of Al-Qaeda hasn’t reduced Al-Qaeda attacks. The position of Osama bin Laden is taken by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Does it bring back the CRPF personnel who gave up their life? Definitely not Is this the case of revenge against terrorists? If it is so, then there is almost no difference in the way of thinking between both groups. So, what did this achieve? ...

Militants can be killed. The objective should be to reduce militancy. As long as the atmosphere of militancy exists, a new militant arises to fill the incumbency. In simple words, it can be understood as this. A terrorist is leading a cause for certain group of people, and if he/she is killed, someone else would take the spot. The analogy can be further simplified in this manner. Suppose there is a club for ‘Cricket’, whose activities are dedicated to increase playing of the game cricket, which is played by members of the club. Now, if the head of this club is dead, someone else would take his place to continue its activities. Just because the head is dead, club wouldn’t shut down. Terrorism is similar to this in many ways. There are people who want a particular thing and they believe they can achieve their interests if they support a certain group of people. And, in this case, this certain group of people are ‘terrorists’, not because they promise to achieve something, bu...

In the last semester, I wrote about Kashmir conflict and the way it has to be addressed for one of my courses ‘Introduction to Conflict Resolution’. While I was writing the final strategy, I wrote a paragraph mentioning the implications for implementation of my strategy. One of the implication is attacks from terrorist’s groups when there is a good sign of development between the relations. I wrote the strategy paper in December 1 st week of 2018 when the new Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has opened Kartarpur Sahib Gurudwara for Indian Sikhs and journalists. The Indian government responded positively to such initiative of Pakistan. As history tends to repeat itself, the good sign of progress is again hampered due to Pulwama attack by Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terrorist group. So, what would break this impasse is a question which has to be answered by both Pakistan and India. This is the excerpt from my strategy paper on how Kashmir conflict should be addressed. Attacks...